Nortstar has it, Place called Jigokudani about 5 hours drive North of Tokyo, hike around 3 Klms into the Mountains to a Hot Springs that the local Macaques have learnt to use to keep warm in the Winters of Northern Japan, the day we visited it was snowing & - 10F, although caretakers throw Grain out in the surrounding area so the Monkeys are able to forage, there is no other attempt to domesticate, these are wild Monkeys. Having said that you can get amazingly close to them, they pretty well ignore us Humans as long as you don't touch them or maintain direct eye contact, worth a visit if your ever in Japan, especially in the winter.

Logged

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

My first time playing around with my new 300 2.8 IS mark i. Shot at 2.8 and 1/1600 iso 100. hand held - af servo

I love the IQ and blow out bokeh, but I will admit that my first time with a 300 2.8 left me thinking I need to work on my skills. I was shooting my dog playing and running with other dogs in an off-leash park, so it was "action" photography. I was disappointed in my "keeper" rate of roughly 60-70%. (1/3rd were oof shots) I'm assuming it's just the narrow depth of field at 2.8 and 300mm.

For those with experience shooting this lens, is it normal to lose 30% of your shots to OOF in the situation I've described above....action, 2.8, 300mm, hand held, and experienced in general- but never with a 300mm prime. I'm assuming it's just the depth of field at 2.8 and 300 with quickly moving subjects combined with no 300mm experience, right?

Part of the reason for my question is that my 70-200 2.8ii has so good to me, even at 2.8 and 200. Maybe it's the newer AF technology? In other words, I think if I had my 70-200 at the dog park today and shot with the same settings at 200mm, my keeper rate would've been closer to 80-90%.

Thoughts from you more experience guys would be appreciated. I'm still in the "testing/return" window with this lens.

Yes, handheld, and shooting at a distance, you must be careful. I got the hang of it this fall with football and soccer, but I was using a monopod. It's a great lens, and focuses faster than the 400 f/2.8 IMO. I'd use a monopod at all times with this lens.

I would agree with bdunbar79 on this lens, it's a great Lens but shooting at distance you need all the help you can get, I use a RRS Monopod and RRS Monopod head, this allows me to markedly increase my keeper rate. As soon as the 300 f/2.8 L II was released I upgraded & with the almost 30% reduced weight, faster focus I still use the Monopod but a lot less, keeper rate has improved over the Mark 1 Lens, I've found this to be the case also with the Version II 400 & 600 as well. I wouldn't say any of the Version II lenses are a huge improvement on IQ over the Version I Lenses, but the improved reduction in weight & faster auto focus has impacted hugely on reducing the OOF shots, I shoot mostly wildlife & would sleep with these Version II lenses if my wife would allow.

Logged

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

Yes, handheld, and shooting at a distance, you must be careful. I got the hang of it this fall with football and soccer, but I was using a monopod. It's a great lens, and focuses faster than the 400 f/2.8 IMO. I'd use a monopod at all times with this lens.

bdun....as I study the shots, i see that some are simply focused on something a few inches in front or back of the subject and that makes the face..etc OOF.... but some of the others are focused spot on and still seem oof....maybe the AF just wasn't quick enough in this case?

I would agree with bdunbar79 on this lens, it's a great Lens but shooting at distance you need all the help you can get, I use a RRS Monopod and RRS Monopod head, this allows me to markedly increase my keeper rate. As soon as the 300 f/2.8 L II was released I upgraded & with the almost 30% reduced weight, faster focus I still use the Monopod but a lot less, keeper rate has improved over the Mark 1 Lens, I've found this to be the case also with the Version II 400 & 600 as well. I wouldn't say any of the Version II lenses are a huge improvement on IQ over the Version I Lenses, but the improved reduction in weight & faster auto focus has impacted hugely on reducing the OOF shots, I shoot mostly wildlife & would sleep with these Version II lenses if my wife would allow.

OK...now a question for both of you....at 1/1600, do I really need a monopod. even at 1/600 or above do I need a monopod